Bengaluru: After his car’s silencer was stolen, a Viveknagar resident faced a prolonged struggle to get his insurance claim processed before finally securing relief from the consumer commission. After the insurer rejected the claim, saying it was not processed as per policy conditions, he approached the Bengaluru Urban district consumer disputes redressal commission, which has now ordered reimbursement of the full amount.The saga began when JK Vijayanandan purchased a car from Suraksha Car Care Pvt Ltd, Hosur Main Road, on March 6, 2021. The vehicle was insured through Maruti Suzuki Insurance Broking Pvt Ltd, which had a tie-up with HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. The policy was issued on March 4, 2023, and remained valid till Feb 28, 2024.Vijayanandan alleged that on July 12, 2023, the silencer of his vehicle, valued at Rs 90,000, was stolen. Subsequently, he left the vehicle with Suraksha Car Care for repairs and sought reimbursement of the repair expenses from the insurer. Despite the complainant submitting the claim and necessary documents, the amount was not settled. On Sept 24, 2024, he filed a consumer case alleging deficiency in service.However, the insurer later proposed a settlement. In an email dated Nov 5, 2025, both the insurance companies offered to settle the complaint by paying Rs 75,007 towards the repair cost, along with Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses. The proposal was accepted by Vijayanandan via an email dated Feb 4, 2026.However, he later filed a memo on Feb 20, 2026, alleging that while the repair cost was addressed, the agreed Rs 10,000 as an additional amount was not paid, forcing him to repeatedly approach the commission.Vijayanandan stated that the theft occurred during the subsistence of the insurance policy and that he had duly informed the service centre and insurer about the incident. However, the claim remained unsettled for months, causing financial loss and mental distress.In their defence, Suraksha Car Care Pvt Ltd, Maruti Suzuki Insurance Broking Pvt Ltd, and HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd contended that the claim had to undergo verification and assessment as per the policy terms. They also denied any negligence or deliberate delay.During the proceedings, the commission noted that the insurance companies had failed to pay the agreed-upon settlement even after repeated follow-ups. It added that since the proposal came only after the complaint was filed, it amounted to deficiency in service.The commission bench, comprising president Shivarama K and members Chandrashekar S Noola and Rekha Sayannavar, in its Feb 27 order, directed the opposite parties to pay the complainant Rs 10,000 with 9% interest from Nov 5, 2025, along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.
